2003 (3) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 regarding exemption for special purpose motor vehicles.
2. Interpretation of the condition in the notification related to the manufacturing process and duty payment on components.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing special motor vehicles, faced a show cause notice proposing denial of exemption under various notifications due to alleged non-payment of duty on certain fabricated components used in the vehicles. The dispute primarily revolved around the applicability of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98, which provided for nil rate of duty for special purpose motor vehicles. The notice demanded duty payment for the period from January 1995 to June 1999 and proposed penalties under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, adjudicated the notice, dropping the demand beyond the six-month limitation period and confirming a reduced amount for the period falling within the limitation. The main contention centered on whether the fabricated components, such as stone chips hopper, tanks, tool boxes, etc., made in the appellants' factory and used in the vehicles, met the condition of being manufactured out of duty-paid chassis and equipments as per the notification.

3. The dispute was further analyzed by the Appellate Tribunal, focusing on the interpretation of the term 'equipments' in the context of the notification. Both parties agreed that the chassis and certain procured components were duty-paid. The appellants argued that the fabricated items were integral to the manufacturing process and did not exist as separate marketable goods or standalone equipments before being incorporated into the vehicles.

4. The Tribunal concurred with the appellants, emphasizing that the fabricated components were intrinsic to the body-building process of the vehicles and did not qualify as independent marketable goods or equipments. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal clarified that the components, being part of the body fabrication, did not fall under the category of 'equipments' as defined in the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they fulfilled the notification's conditions and were entitled to the exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.